Wow, did he just give me free reign to fire someone? Woo hoo. There’s nothing like being drunk with power to remedy a Patron-induced hangover.

But when I got back to my office, I realized “drunk with power” wasn’t all it’s cracked up to be. The candidates weren’t the problem. It was what they represented.

Here’s how they broke down:

Candidate #1: Jason. Georgetown Law. Conservative guy, engaged, worked on a deal with me. Made no mistakes.

Candidate # 2: Sherry. U. Penn Law. Very uptight, worked on two deals with me and her total lack of social skills and typical female chip on her shoulder rubbed me the wrong way. But she didn’t make any major mistakes on the two deals she worked on with me.

Candidate # 3: Adam. Harvard Law. Good guy. Actually, my favorite guy. If this were a personality contest, I would tell the others to get lost. However, there’s this trivial matter of competence. In the three deals we worked on together, he demonstrated a skill level somewhere between gross incompetence and my dog stepping on random computer keys.

Adam, my friend, all the best. Good luck and farewell!

Two little problems.

Adam is black.

And Sherry’s a lesbian.

I want to be clear: I am not prejudiced. I have black friends (both on Facebook and in real life) and have seen every Tyler Perry movie. And lesbians? Do I even have to justify my love for lesbians?

Race and sexual orientation cause a problem because I don’t think the firm would actually rescind either offer under any circumstance. In fact, I’m certain both of them are untouchable. They may as well be riding around in that bulletproof Popemobile because of that unwritten BigLaw policy:

Thou shall not fire any protected class lest we be faced with picketing from the ACLU, the wrath of Rev. Al Sharpton and some candy-ass jury handing out $10 million to any young associate who gets called a name.

Not that there aren’t incompetent white lawyers. There are. One of my good friends at the firm reads at a seventh-grade level. And I know a tax lawyer who has trouble with simple arithmetic. They should be canned—and they will be.

However, when the firm finally comes around to jettisoning its non-minority dead weight, it just fires them. There’s no meeting with HR or the recruiting department or the PR coordinator. A partner simply walks into the guy’s office and says something like, “Get out, and don’t forget to take that Hofstra diploma that has been desecrating our walls for two years with you.”

So, was I supposed to tell him to fire Jason, the competent white guy without a ready-made cause of action? Or maybe the senior partner really wanted my professional opinion on the merits of each candidate, now that the economy is in the toilet and we can no longer afford political correctness. Or maybe everyone on the hiring committee was relieved because they could finally fix their mistakes.

I wanted to think it was about merit, I really did. But I knew better.

The firm regularly turns a blind eye to incompetence when the person in question is a minority. And I’m not the only one who has noticed this. Associates openly discuss the fact that [NAME] would have been fired a long time ago if they weren’t [INSERT YOUR FAVORITE PROTECTED CLASS]. And by “openly discuss,” I mean in front of other white dudes while out drinking heavily.

So, I walked into the partner’s office for clarification.

“I’m just supposed to be going on merit here?”

“What else would you be going on?”

“Well, you know, I just feel like the firm might be a little leery about letting certain candidates go.”

“What are you inferring?”

You can’t fire the lesbian or the black dude!

“Um, well, you know, with the firm being worried about bad press or lawsuits…”

“Matthew, let me stop you right there. The firm has a policy of reviewing every candidate and holding everyone to the very same exacting standard. So please, strictly based on their qualifications, which candidate would you let go?”

“Okay, then even though I really like the guy, based on merit, I’d have to say Adam has no business working here because he screwed up every assignment.”

“Thanks for your input, Matthew.”

I walked out wondering whether I was being a racist or a realist. Should I join the KKK or the ABA?

* * * * *

The other day, I got a call from the partner.

“Matthew, I know I put you in a tough spot,” he said. “I just wanted to let you know, we rescinded Jason’s offer.”

“Well, I’m sure Adam will be disappointed… Wait, did you say Jason?”

“Matthew, the committee based their decision on a number of reviewers.”

“Really, who else?”

“It was a combination of your reviews and, well, mine. It was a tough call, but this decision was in the best interest of everyone involved.”

Translation: It’s easier to fire competent white dudes than it is to get rid of incompetent minorities.

You may also like...

51 Comments

Northern Chick

February 26, 2009 at 5:28 am

The typical white male partners at BIGLAW will necessarily favor their own, and keep White males (Like BL1Y), laying off women and minorities that are not likely to be good in bringing in or nurturing paying clients. To the extent that the women and minorities start bring in paying clients, they would become more valuable to the firm; but until then, they are more in the nature of window dressing, and expendible when it comes down to cutting out the fat.

Northern Chick is on to something. The typical partners at BIGLAW will protect their own. Unfortunately, what she doesn’t realize is NOBODY right out of school is one of “their own.”
Face it, ALL of the new kids are window dressing. The firm is just rolling the dice and praying that none of them screws up badly enough to lose a client.
Since most 1st years at BIGLAW are useless in the grand scheme of things, why not keep the ones that will keep the discrimination claims to a minimum.

I agree anon (below). I just had to give a 45 minute speech on anti tort reform last night in front of my 100 person class. This website is one of the things that keeps me sane while I research/read. Please keep the new articles coming, from all the writers. This guy is my favorite though. (And I even enjoy reading the comments, no matter how crazy some of them are.)

Go Craig! I think it’s best to diversify the firms, even if it means losing the white guys that mightl, over the next 10 years, bring more revenue into the firms than the others. It doesn’t pay to be stylish, but it’s good business (whatever that means).

Sadly this story is repeated EFD. I feel sorry for protected minority group assocs who are actually competent, because everyone just assumes they are incompetent because they are sacrosanct. Then again, a lot of them aren’t competent to begin with.

this post reminds me of possibly the most absurdly inept summer associate in the history of summer associates. he was a charismatic guy, but i can’t even begin to describe his incompetence. it was shocking that he was actually attending a decent law school. and the guy knew how to work the system – once his mid-summer reviews clued him in to the horrendousness of his work product, he began making vague accusations of racism and a hostile work environment, and he suddenly became an HR nightmare. ultimately he was not extended an offer, but only after forcing the firm to triple and quadruple-cover its own ass. a white candidate of his caliber would have likely been shown the door after about two weeks. he managed to get about $30 grand out of the experience, not to mention all of the freebies he pilfered (such as running up ridiculous lunch and happy hour tabs). he was the poster child for the costs of forced diversity initiatives.

I don’t understand the purpose of diversity initiatives at a place such as a law firm, other than for affirmative action and PR. Universities can make the argument (however persuasive you find it) that a diverse student body and faculty creates a better learning environment because of the different view points present and the opportunity to learn about other cultures, religions, etc. What good does it do in a law firm? Do black people tend to have a unique perspective on the 1934 Exchange Act? Does it help a client to have every tenth filing be written by a lesbian?

It’s stylish to have some diversity around the table, even if only 2 or 3 people actually do the work for the rest of the laggards. To be honest, there are plenty of useless and lazy white guys, so the minorities arent the only dunces I’ve seen. Once in a great while, you’ll get a smart one, so it’s not a foregone conclusion that every minority is useless.

totally agree, anon – the firm i worked at also had some very skilled and competent minorities. but there were some real clunkers, and i agree with bl1y that the whole diversity thing really doesn’t add much in a commercial law firm environment. it’s another story if you’re in a plaintiff’s p.i. firm or a firm that does a lot of civil rights litigation – i think that’s where “diversity” can really be an asset. but i totally agree that you don’t really need “diverse” viewpoints to handle a UCC claim or an asset sale. you need competence. if minorities possess that competence, great – by all means hire them. if not, they should not be hired as window dressing or for the firm brochure.

Can anyone coherently explain why “diversity” in an intellectual pursuit such as the law is measured based on skin color, which really offers no insight into how different two individuals are, rather than differences in philosophy, background and outlook?

Also, I worked with a totally stupid female, who was only there because she was stacked, and the partner in charge was a tit man. She in some ways was worse than a minority, because she was totally out of bounds for sexual reasons (partner had exclusive dibs) , but useless for any other purpose.

anon – skin color is used as a proxy for firms actually having to get to know their candidates and learning about their backgrounds, philosophies, etc. the assumption is that if you’re black, you bring a completely different “viewpoint” to the table, despite the fact that most black lawyers come from upper-middle class families whose upbringings were no different from their white counterparts. the racism is implicit in that the assumption is that if you’re black, you must have had some wildly exotic influences that will cause you to see the lanham act in a whole new light.

Just out of curiousity, who do you think firms are MORE afraid to fire, minorities or gays? I would have said minorities, now that Obama is president, but the gay coalitions seem way more organized. I learned this from watching Milk.

Unbelievable pussy manager at the firm. Don’t they know that if decisions are to be based on merit that they should keep the guy / girl with the most merit? As between the black and white guy, the white guy was better. Not enough information about the woman/lesbian, but that should not matter as long as she doesn’t make an issue of her sexuality at work. I would have voted to jettison the black guy. Does that make me racist? I don’t think so. If he sucks, he should go, even if he complains to the EEOC, they will have to let the firm win, especially if they prove he is a buffoon.

@4:54: If they fire the black guy and he sues, the firm can have problems regardless of the merits. They’ll certainly get a lot of bad publicity from a discrimination suit. The accusation hits the news (er…ATL, etc) and gets attention, but no one cares any more by the time the claim is dismissed. Also, to show he was a bafoon, they’d have to smear a former employee on the record, which will also give them bad publicity, even if true.

“I want to be clear: I am not prejudiced. I have black friends (both on Facebook and in real life) and have seen every Tyler Perry movie.”
Matthew-You’re an IDIOT!
Who cares if the guy is black! Who cares if the girl is a lesbian. You fire the incompetent worker & you hire the competent worker. It’s not rocket science. This is business. I don’t care if the guy went to Harvard.

You’re statement was RACIST!
This reminds me of my friend who wanted so badly to save the auto industry. Save the American auto industry! He drives a German car.

I wonder why there are people in this country who believe that minorities do not get their jobs based on intellect. Gee…maybe because of dummies like Matthew.
Look past the race. Your focus on their race/sexual orientation was disgusting. You’re a moron!

I think this writer is right. Mabye not politikly correct, but right. Why are the liberals bashing him? Hire and fire based on merit. What is wrong with that? BL1Y seems to say don’t do it because it’s bad politics? How is the firm to survive if it is teeming with mediocrity? Tell us, BL1Y, how?

Matthew is an Idiot: You are indeed the idiot. The point of the article was to demonstrate that race and sexual orientation should not matter, but that so often it is the determining factor due to an overly pc society. You are calling the writer an idiot, yet your statement on firing the incompetent worker is consistent with Matthew (not-the-idiot) Richardson’s. I don’t think your reading comprehension is up to par with a BL. Assuming you read the rest of the article, Matthew advised that the incompetent employee should be fired regardless of race.
Susie: There are people in this country who believe that minorities don’t get their positions based on intellect because of diversity requirements and affirmative action. If a minority comes from a low income area with a school district that performs substantially worse than that of a white kid from an affluent neighborhood, the minority is not going to be as well educated. Diversity requirements or affirmative action may get that minority a spot at a top university or law firm, but his intellect will be questioned as a result…and then when he messes up on a deal, the boss will keep him. This is why we need to reform the education system instead of trying to “increase diversity,” which makes minorities tokens.

@7:55: I was saying why a firm might act that way, not advocating that they do so. And Susie: Have you never heard of affirmative action? Universities accept minority students with lower highschool GPAs/SATs than would be acceptable for whites. Law schools accept minority students with lower GPAs/LSATs than would be acceptable for whites. How do you think a law firm’s diversity initiative works? You think Matthew should “look past the race?” That’s what he did! You’re confusing Matthew with the partner who would rather deal with incompetance than a discrimination claim.

Hire and retain WOMEN. We have been put down and kept down too long by the men, like BL1Y and his forebears. We are tops and based on merit we should be retained. As for minorities, I think they should be hired and retained on the basis of merit.

Shouldn’t Michael have nipped this in the bud and pointed out Adam’s glaring incompetence by his third failed deal as a summer associate.? Why complain now? Michael should have said his piece long before Adam ever received an offer of employment.

Thanks for showing how not to think Alma. If women can be generalized to be “tops and based on merit … should be retained,” how is it that people shouldn’t be discriminating again? We knew why you were single already, but if you hate men so much, have you tried a same-sex relationship? Perhaps you should. In any event, your argument basically justifies men acting the same way, which is pretty funny. Guys, you should feel free to discriminate against women, and don’t feel bad about it – as Alma so handily demonstrates, women do the same when they are able.

How am I wrong? If firms hire and retain the best, then they, by definition, will hire and retain women. Look at the female firms –they do well by doing good. I am all for merit. I said if you don’t hire the best you will suffer. How many law firms can say this about hard working women? Not many. There always will be some non-productive workers, but on the whole, women are the best. If you hire and retain us, you will do well.

Alma: Just for the record, this isn’t feminism, it’s womenfirstism, or what the lay people call “bigotry.” Yes, if you hire the best lawyers, you will necessarily hire SOME women. But, that’s not the argument you make. You didn’t say that “women are among the best.” Nope, just that “women are the best.” When you say this sort of shit all you do is encourage discrimination against women. If when women get into positions of power they use those positions to promote female-supremacist ideals, then men will feel free to keep women out of power. Misandry is no better than misogyny (except that the Firefox spell checked recognizes misogyny). Your bigotry doesn’t deserve a fair shake, so don’t complain when the other side fights dirty to keep it out of power. However, I believe that most men and women believe in fairness and equity, and that your extremist position is in the minority, so all we need to do is discriminate against bigots like you, instead of women at large. I look forward to the day when we are all judged on the content of our character. On that day, Alma, I hope you bring a box of tissues.

BL1Y, have you considered that this is how a large number of feminist-educated women think today? It is, if you get them behind closed doors. It’s not that men and women are different but equal, or the same – it’s that women do everything men do, better, and are generally better off without men at all. Alma’s statements below are a perfect example of this kind of thinking. The original ideal of equality and valuing each person for what they brought to the table was horribly distorted into man-hating, blaming “male oppression” for all failures, and other plain old sexism. This is what suffices for “education” these days in many places. Sad, and the fact that Alma can’t see the irony in her position would be funny if it weren’t so depressing.

This is actually pretty close to the views expressed in my feminist jurisprudence class. I’d get to hear all about how men were violent, and animalistic, dangerous criminals, and how the women were afraid of them, especially if they were alone in a bad neighborhood. If you’d have substituted “black” for “men” you’d have instantly been teleported to Birmingham circa 1960.

I know nothing about big law PCness, since I don’t work there, but I totally believe. (Btw, competent women hate incompetent women too.)
One thing that is true, however, at least in smaller and medium size firms, is that female associates don’t seem to get into as many pissing matches with young male partners as male associates do. So we don’t get fired as often for being assholes. (Notice I did not say “never,” just “not as often.”)

I appreciate the concern which is been rose. The things need to be sorted out because it’s not about the individual but it can be with everyone.
abiton
<a href=http://www.legalx.net>lawyer directory</a>

Let’s have some real talk about your worst client. The guy who took a swing at you in court? The lady whose voice reached the stratosphere when she was yelling...

What The?

We are in the middle of redesigning the Bitter Lawyer site. If you can't find what you came for, give us a shout. You can also start here, though even that is under revision. Don't worry, we'll be done soon.